Last post on Aug 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM
You are in the Toyota Sequoia
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Sequoia, Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Yukon XL, SUV
#130 of 173 Here's another site's data
Jul 16, 2004 (10:30 pm)
...from the Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration website: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/tsb/tsbsearch.cfm
2004 Toyo Sequoia (dates from 8/19/03 to 5/31/04): 6 TSBs
2003 Toyo Sequoia (dates from 3/05/03 to 5/31/04): 16 TSBs
2004 GMC Yukon (dates from 1/01/03 to 1/01/04): 104 TSBs
2003 GMC Yukon (dates from 5/01/02 to 1/01/04): 166 TSBs
2004 Chevy Tahoe (dates from 1/01/03 to 1/01/04): 101 TSBs
2003 Chevy Tahoe (dates from 1/01/02 to 1/01/04): 157 TSBs
Whether or not one of the two sites that I've quoted are 100% correct, I think gkatz1 and I do agree in theory that the Toyota's dependability, as compared to the GMC and their variants, is far superior.
With the GMCs you can save about 10% off of the Sequoia's price tag, but then you have to deal with 10 times or more the amount of problems with it. To me it's a no-brainer.
#131 of 173 Re: Here's another site's data [gwdsequoia]
Jul 17, 2004 (12:35 pm)
Drawing the conclusion from your handle. I would say you are not unbiased. My experience with Toyota over the years is just the opposite, very poor quality vehicles. A PU and a Land Cruiser, were a constant source of trouble. My current Suburban a 1999 model is near perfect after 6 years. One slight exhaust leak and the trip odometer replaced. I wasted the $1100 on an extended warranty.
#132 of 173 Sequoia is not a big polluter
Jul 17, 2004 (7:24 pm)
All Sequoia's meet 50 state ULEV standards and get better city and combined mileage than the current 4WD GM Suburbans. Better crash test scores too. Very interesting link, thanks, gagrice. Rumor has it that the 2005 Sequoia will get 16 city and 20 hwy and will have 45 more horses (285).
#134 of 173 Re: Here's another site's data [gwdsequoia]
Jul 19, 2004 (6:00 am)
I think the assumption that if there are 10 times as many TSBs that you have to deal with 10 times or more the amount of problems is some pretty faulty logic. As one poster pointed out, many, if not the majority, of TSBs are are things that do not translate into owner issues and are extremely minor in nature, and the GMC trucks also offer many more variants... e.g., four different powertrains vs. Sequoia's one.
We now have 24K miles on our Suburban and not a single problem yet... in spite of hundreds of TSBs. I personally would still tend to believe that Toyota has an edge over GMC in terms of quality, but IMO the difference is not material and certainly doesn't justify the premium if otherwise GMC has a more capable, better looking and feature laden vehicle. While of course looks are subjective, as to capability (greater towing capacity even with base powertrain, more cargo capacity, more power even with base engine) and available features (XM radio, programmable driver center w/trip computer, memory seats, etc., tri-zone climate control, 2nd row captains chairs, OnStar, nav system (on Denali), Autoride suspension, etc.), Suburban/YXL has the Sequoia beat easily.
Besides, as I've mentioned before, the Suburban/YXL/Escalade are in a class alone in terms of ability to carry 6+ passengers and cargo... for those of us with such needs, there is no comparison.
Jul 20, 2004 (5:29 am)
good points, Your statements make it clearer than ever that there is no one SUV for everyone. Weigh all the options and the tasks you wish the vehicle to perform and pick the one that best suites your needs!!
#136 of 173 Choosing a big SUV
Oct 11, 2004 (6:12 am)
Need an SUV w/ as much safety, space, features as possible but would like to stay in the under 45K price range. Edmunds' editors rank Chev Tahoe/GMC Yukon first in the large SUV under 45K category, giving Toyota Sequoia an honorable mention. What I don't understand is why the editors' score for the Tahoe/Yukon is 7.3 but is higher (8.3) for the Sequoia.
For both vehicles the consumer scores are comparable (9.0 for Tahoe/Yukon and 9.1 for Sequoia).
I'm confused about the editor's score being lower for their first choice vehicle; but, even more than that, I'm confused about the biggest pros and cons of the two.
Finally, I keep hearing that people who have owned Suburbans and Lincolns are VERY faithful owners and "get addicted" to their vehicles. I've talked to some of them and they seem almost sheepish about their need to continue to owning these trucks. But they love them. So, they are on my list, too.
HELP !! Thanks!
#137 of 173 is a personal thing!
Oct 20, 2004 (12:05 pm)
The reality is that this is an individual choice: some need towing, some passenger room, some have specific outer size requirements (to fit in a garage or parking space), etc. I, for one, found the Sequoia the most polished bang for the buck (or 50k, as the case may be). I was impressed that, for a vehicle its size, the Sequoia drove not all that differently than one much smaller. Neither the Armada, Expedition nor, heaven help me, the Yukon drove (in my humble opinion) anything nearly as polished and smooth. Thatís what did it for me.
#139 of 173 your ownership experience
Nov 23, 2004 (2:49 pm)
I currently have a 99 suburban and thinkng may be getting a 2005 sub or seq. Can anyone who actully has owned both and tell me your overall feeling about them? Dealership test drive usually does not reflect the whole driving experience. If you have had both of them , which one of them will you buy again? My experience with my sub has been farily pleasntly and have not had any problem over 5 years. The only thing I dont like about the sub is that the chassis has much less and clean grand clearance than the seq. Also, chevy's resale value sucks.